BROKEN SERVICE

Evening Star, Issue 14512, 2 November 1910, Page 2

BROKEN SERVICE

THE QUESTION TIF SUPERANNUA TION.

[Per United Press Association’.]

CHRISTCHURCH, November 1. A cate oi interest to Civil eerva-nis, and esirccially to members of the Police Force whore service has not been continuous, was before Mr Justice Sim at the Supremo Court, in Banco to-day, when Joseph Albert M'Grath (Mr T. G. Russell) proceeded on an originating summons against the Minister of'internal Affairs, represented by Mr Ostler, of tho Crown Law Office, claiming tho right to date his service for superannuation purposes from June 6, 1878. Mr Russell stated that Sub-inspector M’Grath joined the sendee on June 6, 1878, and continued in it till May 6, 1882, and rejoined it on December 2. 1882. He had, therefore, had a break of four months and a-half, and tho question was whether, when he got his pension, ho would ho able to add the”two discontinuous periods of his service together, and have his pension computed from Juno 6, 1878, or whether he was bound to take it as from December 2, 1882. These questions turned upon section 50 of tho Public .Service Classification and Superannuation Act Amendment Act. 1908, which provided that anyone who was a contributor to the Public Service Superannuation Fund on October 10, 1908, had tho light to pay in the moneys laid down in the section to cover any broken period of service, not being more than one year, and by such payment have the right to have liis pension computed from the date upon which he first entered the service. Tho question the Court had to decide was whether Sub-inspector M’Grath wasa contributor to the fund at tho 10th of October, 1908. Until 1909 the Police_ Provident Fund existed us a separate institution, but on December 24 of that year it was by statnto merged into the Public Service Superannuation Fund. The Act under which this was effected came into force on April 1, 1910, and provided that the contributions of all persons who were contributors to the Police Provident Fund when tho Act came into force should ho deemed to have been made to the Public Service Superannuation Fund. Under this provision Sub-inspector M'Grath was a contributor to the fund as from the date of its establishment, and was therefore a contributor under section 50 of the 1908 Act. That being tho case, he. claimed the right by payment of the moneys due to have his pension computed from the date he entered the Forte. He had paid £l2O in respect to his broken period of service. Mr Ostler contended that this was not the proper construction to put upon tire section. Sub-inspector. M'Grath could not possibly be deemed to have contributed to a fund which was not in existence. If Mr Russell’s argument was sound, tho Court would have to assume that by some legal fiction the law allocated Sub-inspector M’Grath's payment for eighteen yeans hack to a fund which only came into existence in 1907: Mr Russell’s argument was based on the fallacy that only “original contrioutora” under the Act must have been contributors when the 1908 Act came into operation. It would lie contended that whilst the original contributors were entitled to count their service before the coming into operation of the Act. they were only entitled to do so if their service had been continuous.

Mr Russell, in reply, submitted that the words of the subsection of section 50 were clear, and placed Sub-inspector M'Grath on the footing of a contributor at the time when the 1908 Act came into force. Thai Act must bo construed reasonably, and i; such a manner as to give full effect to al its words, and that was to be done by co. struiag the Act to mean that the pay ments which sub-inspector M'Grath co;. tributed to the police fund wore deemc. in law to have been made to the Publi' Service Fund when it came into existent in 1908, and up to the present. Tha being so, Sub-inspector M'Grath was clear!, a contributor within tho meaning of sc. lion 50 of the Act. His Honor reserved judgment.